Congress should kill discriminatory domestic violence act
By Wendy McElroy
web posted July 4, 2005
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will expire this
September if it is not reauthorized by Congress. Largely viewed
as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a
flashpoint for the men's rights advocates who see it instead as the
living symbol of anti-male bias in law.
Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are
male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-
funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and
routinely turn away men, often including older male children.
Estimates vary on the prevalence of male victims. Professor
Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach
offers a bibliography that "summarizes 170 scholarly
investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews."
It indicates that men and women are victimized at much the same
rate. A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study:
Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence
between 1998 and 2002.
Accordingly, men's rights activists not only accuse the VAWA of
not merely being unconstitutional for excluding men but also of
dismissing the existence of one-quarter to one-half of domestic
violence victims.
The criticism should go deeper. In many ways, VAWA typifies
the legislative approach to social problems, which arose over the
past few decades and peaked during the Clinton years.
The legislative approach follows a pattern: public furor stirs over
a social problem; Congress is pressured to "do something";
remedial bureaucracy arises, often with scant planning; the
problem remains; more money and bureaucracy is demanded;
those who object are called hostile to "victims."
VAWA arose largely from the concern stirred by feminists in the
'80s. They quite properly focused on domestic violence as a
neglected and misunderstood social problem. But their analysis
went to extremes and seemed tailor-made to create public furor.
As an example, consider a widely circulated claim: "a woman is
beaten every 15 seconds." The statistic is sometimes attributed
to the FBI, other times to a 1983 report by the Department of
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. But neither the FBI nor the
DOJ sites seems to include that statement or a similar one.
Men's rights activists contend that the elusive statistic derives
from the book "Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American
Family" (1980) by Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles and
Suzanne K. Steinmetz. The book was based on the first National
Family Violence Survey (1975), from which the FBI and other
federal agencies drew.
The survey does support the claim that a woman is battered
every 15 seconds but also indicates men are also victims. By
omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic
violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic
that uniquely victimizes women who require unique protection.
In response to public outcry, Congress was pressured to "do
something." It passed VAWA 1994, granting $1.6 billion to
create a bureaucracy of researchers, advocates, experts, and
victim assistants, which some collectively call "the domestic
violence industry."
Reauthorized in 2000, VAWA's funding rose to $3.33 billion to
be expended over five years. Now, VAWA 2005 seeks more
money.
Voices like the National Organization for Women insist that "the
problem" remains. To argue for the "growing problem of gender-
based violence," however, NOW reaches beyond traditionally
defined violence against women and seeks to protect high school
girls from abusive dating experiences. NOW states, "Nearly one
in three high-school-age women experience some type of abuse
— whether physical, sexual or psychological — in their dating
relationships."
Without expanding the definition in such a manner, it would be
difficult to argue for more funding.
Data indicates that traditionally defined violence against women
has declined sharply. The rate of family violence reportedly "fell
from about 5.4 victims per 1,000 to 2.1 victims per 1,000
people 12 and older," according to DOJ statistics.
VAWA 2005 faces much more opposition than its earlier
incarnations. One reason is that men's rights activists have been
presenting counter-data and arguments for over 10 years.
Advocates of VAWA 2005 have responded with pre-emptive
accusations that paint opponents as anti-victim: for example, "If
Congress does not act quickly to reauthorize the legislation, they
are putting women's and children's lives at risk."
But most of the anti-VAWA arguments are not anti-victim.
Many are anti-bureaucracy and could apply to any of the so-
called "industries" created by the legislative approach to social
problems. (The Child Protective Services is another example.)
Some anti-bureaucracy objections focus on the billions of dollars
transferred into programs, often with little oversight or
accountability attached.
Other objections point to those dollars being used for political
purposes rather than clear and immediate assistance to victims.
The misuse of tax dollars is most often alleged on the grassroots
level, where men's rights activists often face VAWA-funded
opposition to political measures, especially on father's rights
issues.
One incident in New Hampshire illustrates the point. Earlier this
year, The Presumption of Shared Parental Rights and
Responsibilities Act was defeated by vehement opposition from
the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence. The coalition both wrote to and spoke before the
Legislature. Accordingly, father's rights advocates in New
Hampshire are seeking language in VAWA 2005 to prohibit any
VAWA-funded agency from "legislative lobbying, advertising, or
otherwise supporting the endorsement of, or opposition to, any
state proposed legislation" which is not explicitly related to the
prevention of domestic violence.
I think they should seek to kill the act entirely. I believe VAWA
is not only ideologically inspired and discriminatory, it is also an
example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to human
problems do not work.
I hope VAWA becomes the Titanic of the legislative approach
to social problems. I hope it sinks spectacularly.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research
fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the
author and editor of many books and articles, including the new
book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st
Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives
with her husband in Canada.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com